A little seen part of the work of a full council meeting is our ability to put questions to Cabinet Members for a written reply. Unfortunately, we cannot then ask a further question based on this reply as happens in Parliament.
I put down the questions regarding the costs of the Caller Inspection and the Commissioner team because I think it important that the people of Liverpool know the cost of the Anderson years. The costs here should be added to the £135 million which ahs already been identified and there is a further £2.1 million for the Strategic Improvement Plan. All money that we could otherwise spend on front line services.
I asked about stalled developments because we must soon start to find out the full costs that the public sector will have to pay for remediation. The number of sites has been reduced from 39 to 34 and I suspect it is the easiest schemes that have been done first and that there will be little movement on most of the remaining 34.
I asked about the role of the external auditor to see whether they had tried to examine the problems which were becoming clear in the Regeneration Dept. They didn’t!
I asked about Section 106 money and find it interesting that the Council cannot answer the first question. The planning committee recently let a global developer worth £billions off £600,000 of development cash. We don’t know how many similar decisions have been made and how we have given up that could have been used to improve the environment in Liverpool.
I asked the question about the People’s Bank to make sure that we were not going to throw good money after bad on a quixotic venture. We aren’t!
This is just part of the job we do at council and in committees to hold both the Cabinet and senior officers to account.
Question to the Cabinet Member for Strategic Development & Housing
Stalled Developments
A Council report produced in November 2020 indicated that there were 39 stalled developments in the city. Since then, can the Cabinet Member advise on the following:
· How many have been removed from the list as work has started on them?
· How many have been added to the list?
· Has the Council received money from the Combined Authority to help our investigation of the remaining stalled sites?
· What is the current estimate of the amount of public sector money that will be required to put these sites right?
Response
· 12 schemes have now been taken off the “stalled” list and moved to the “back on track” or “completed” category.
· 7 new schemes have been added to the original list.
· The council has received £90,000 from the Combined Authority to support investigation of stalled sites.
· The total value of stalled schemes is £1.26bn. There is no estimate of public sector money required to put the sites right as we do not know how sites will be treated by their owners going forwards.
· The Council is currently working with Homes England and the Combined Authority to identify a shortlist of sites that may be considered for various forms of potential public sector support or intervention where appropriate.
Questions to the Mayor of Liverpool
Cost of the Caller Report
Can the Mayor please advise on what was the total cost to the Council for the Caller Report?
Response
The total cost of the Best Value Inspection was £129,148.70
Cost of the Commissioner Team
Can the Mayor please supply the current estimates for the costs of the Commissioners and their team for this financial year and the estimate being included for the next financial year and subsequent financial year split up, if possible, as follows:
· Costs of the commissioners based on their daily rates
· Costs of all support staff
· Costs for subsistence and travel for the whole team
· Costs for external services, if any, requested by the Commissioner Team
Can the Mayor also please provide details of all external costs connected with the strategic improvement plan by the LGA and any other support organisation such as CIPFA and CFSG both to date and an estimate of their costs for this financial year and the next.
Response: These figures are for three financial years based on current costs and estimates
· Costs of the commissioners based on their daily rates £1,305,000
· Costs of all support staff £ 174,000
· Costs for subsistence and travel for the whole team £ 397,000
· Costs for external services, if any, requested by the £ 150,000
Commissioner Team
- CIPFA Review £ 54,000
- LGA £ 10,875
- CFGS £ 8,812
- Local Partnerships £ 40,000
- Planning Advisory Services £ 3,784
Total £2,143,471
Questions to the Chair of the Audit Committee
Work of the Council’s External Auditors
Can the chair please advise, given the ability of the Council’s external auditors to identify problems which need reviewing and to charge the council more through the PSAA system for such investigations would the chair indicate if Grant Thornton in any year from Summer 2015 identified the major problems which were public knowledge and the subject of questioning in the Regeneration Department and seek authorisation to examine those problems.
Response
I am advised by Officers that they are not aware of any extra work having been undertaken by Grant Thornton on the specific issues cited by Councillor Kemp.
Section 106 money
Can the chair please state on the following:
1. Over the past 5 years how much money the planning committee has decided not to collect from the standard development tariffs
2. How much S106 money was collected from Redrow Homes
3. How much did the planning committee ask for as a condition of planning consent which was not collected?
4. Whether members of the planning committee have been provided with any training to understand the concept of S106 and its importance?
Response
1. To answer this query officers would need to review all planning committee reports which related to major development over the past 5 years. This would require significant time and resources to provide an answer.
2. £568,692 3. There are no outstanding Section 106 contributions due from Redrow Homes. The amount of £568,692 was required and has been paid.
4. Training for members of the planning committee on development viability is currently being scheduled for the near future. The training will be delivered by the independent consultant who reviews viability appraisals submitted to the council. In addition, a guide on S106 has been provided to all members. This guide explains Government legislation and guidance on S106 and how the council works within this.
A further note on the development viability process has recently prepared for the chair of planning committee. It is important to note that each year the council also publishes an infrastructure funding statement, this provides members and stakeholders with an understanding on what Section 106 obligations have been secured, allocated and spent. This offers a detailed report on the importance of Section 106 and how it helps to fund the delivery of infrastructure in the City.
Question to the Deputy Mayor for Finance and Resources
Given that it is now more than two years since the development of a community led bank was announced between Liverpool, Preston and other councils would the Deputy Mayor please advise on the following:
1. How many local residents or businesses have been signed up to the Bank:
A) In Liverpool?
B) In total?
2. How much has Liverpool spent in the development and promotion of this idea?
3. How many people need to be signed up to the project to make the Bank viable?
4. Are all the councils signed up to the idea of the Bank still fully engaged and confident that the idea will develop?
Response
1. At this time, the Bank has not been established and so no residents or businesses have been signed up.
2. £1500 (circa)
3. The outline business case completed in March 2020 does not identify the number of customers required to make the bank viable. A full business case, extensive due diligence and stress testing would need to be completed before this information was available.
4. You will have seen the recent announcement regarding Wirral’s position. LCC’s investment has always been dependent on the presentation of a viable business case and a regional approach to investment.
But what does Richard Kemp think? 